DISTORTIONS OF SLOVENIAN HISTORY

Anton Skerbinc, Boswell, British Columbia, Canada. – I read with interest the article "Dejstvo je, da imamo razlicne prednike" by Dr. Peter
Stih (Ameriška Domovina / American Home, Jan. 16 and Jan. 23/03). I find it remarkable for the number of inaccuracies, and especially for its anti-Slovenian tone.
The reason for his article at this time (and similar contributions by several other academics in Slovenia) is that preparations are underway for a conference
on Indigenous Populations of Central Europe, which will be held in Kobarid, Slovenia, May 29 — 31/03. As with the first conference in the same
series, Origins of Slovenians, held in Ljubljana in September 2001, it is being organized outside the historiographic establishment, hence the official
protestations.

Since the aim of the conference is to clarify the position of Slovenians within the indigenous populations of central Europe, Dr. Stih tells us that he is
a big opponent of the idea and stresses that the Slovenian nation is a very recent development – he mentions the second half of the 18th century.
However, he forgets to mention that this view had been developed by German and Austrian historians and archaeologists who were in the employ of
their respective governments, and who needed to prove that Slovenians were intruders who had no prior rights in central Europe. Although there
is no documentary or archaeological evidence for this view, generations of scholars have been indoctrinated as if it were a scientifically proven fact.
The majority of Slovenian scholars, including Dr. Stih, are part of this equation. Another impression I get from reading his article is that he likes to
downgrade, whenever he can, the historical importance of Slovenians.

To clarify some problems with this one-sided view, I would like to quote from the book Veneti: First Builders of European Community: Tracing the
History and Language of Early Ancestors of Slovenes by Jozko Savli, Matej Bor, and Ivan Tomazic. This book very much supports the opposite view,
namely, that Slovenians were/are indigenous in their traditional lands, and that their language did not just suddenly materialize for the convenience of
historians and linguists. Slovenian has ancient roots going back to Vedic Sanskrit, the oldest of Indo-European languages. Aside from Vedic
Sanskrit, only Slovenian and the Lusatian in eastern Germany have preserved the dual grammatical form. This, too, is generally avoided by establishment
historians and linguists.

In his article Dr. Stih states that King Samo was of Frankish origin. This is as untrue as it is prejudicial to Slovenians who were the most important
part of his kingdom. In Veneti (page 144) we read: "King Samo (623 - 658) was originally a merchant in the Frankish province of Senonago, the location
of which is no longer known. The document, Fredegarii Chronicon (around 658), includes Samo among Frankish nationals (natione Francus), which
does not mean that he was also of Frankish extraction (genere Francus). At his court Slavic customs were the rule and the envoy had to change into
Slavic attire before he could be presented to King Samo. Would the Slavs have chosen a man of Frankish origin to be their king? The later
document Conversio Bagoariourum et Carantanorum (circa 873) clearly shows that Samo reigned in Carantania. The Excerptum of this document
presents him as the first Duke of the Carantanians."

"Samo's residence could only have been in Carantania, south of the Danube, which St. Amand had to cross in order to reach his court. Missionaries
were required first to present themselves before the king in order to receive consent for their mission."

However, according to Dr. Stih, there were no Slovenians in Carantania. He says they were Carantanians: "In other words, we made Slovenians
out of Carantanians, which they certainly were not." This sort of interpretation of conditions at the time is the norm among historians like Dr. Stih.
The Department of History in Ljubljana still relies entirely on foreign theories and interpretations of Slovenian history. Indeed, its principal function appears
to be the enforcement of foreign theories.

We must also note that Slovenians never had their own History School; they were never allowed to carry out independent research, whether under
the Austrian Hapsburgs or Serb-dominated Yugoslavia, and nothing has changed even in independent Slovenia. Slovenian historians continue copying,
mainly from Austrian history books, and Dr. Stih is part of this scenario.

Carantania has been the thorn in the side of German and Austrian historians. They could not accept the fact that it was Slovenians who had one of
the first nation states in central Europe. And this was not because they had just arrived from Trans-Carpathia, but because they were indigenous to
the Alpine regions of central Europe. The investiture of Carantanian princes and dukes was always carried out in the Slovenian language. On page
522 of Veneti: "When the Hapsburgs came to power in 1335 in the East Frankish Kingdom to which Carantania then belonged, they took over its legacy,
but still had to be invested as Dukes of Carantania. The famous ceremony on the Prince's Stone (now in the museum in Klagenfurt) continued to be
performed in the Slovene language. When after 1414 the ceremony ceased (under German pressure), the occasion was limited to presentation before
the Ducal Throne (the two seat stone throne stands in the field at Gospa Sveta). This ceremony was also performed in the Slovene language and
remained unchanged until the modification of the Constitution at the time of Empress Maria Theresa's ascendance to the Austrian throne in 1740. At
that time the presentation before the Ducal Throne ended, and the Carantanian legacy was incorporated into the Austrian Constitution."

According to Dr. Stih, the original homeland of Slavs is in Trans-Carpathia. But in Veneti on page 11 we read: "There are also no archaeological
finds from the region behind the Carpathian Mountains that could prove the existence of an ancient Slavic cultural entity. This point cannot be stressed
enough, yet it is systematically avoided by most historians."

Dr. Stih also bypasses the problem of presumed settlement of Slavs in central Europe in the 6th century by introducing his personal views on the
subject. "Today we try to explain this phenomenon . . . with identity transference." In his opinion, the indigenous population, which had been
under Roman rule for several centuries and was therefore on a considerably higher cultural level, had without battles (there is no documentary evidence of
such battles), accepted the Trans-Carpathian newcomers as their new ruling class, adopted their language and customs, and ceded to them the entire
territory from the Danube to the Adriatic. Something of this sort could have happened only in Dr. Stih's dreams. To take the most beautiful
territories in the centre of Europe without major battles is unthinkable. Yet, not one historian mentions battles. Why? Because they did
not happen. The indigenous Alpine population was not the Latinized Celts as we are told – they were the indigenous West Slavic Slovenians, or rather,
their ancestors. The Germans called them the Windische (as our people are at times still called by German speakers); to Latin speakers, they were Veneti.
Fredegarii Chronicon from 623 uses the name Vinedos for Slovenians: "Sclavi coinomento Vinedos." Their land is "marca Winedorum."
Slovenian Prince Valuk is "Walucus dux Winedorum." We find the same in Vitae S. Columbani where the author writes about "the land of the Veneti
who are also known as Slavs" [Termini Venetiorum qui et Sclavi dicuntur].

On page 520 of Veneti we read: "We can conclude that after the departure of the Byzantines [in 568], the indigenous people of Inner Noricum [the
approximate southern half of present-day Austria] proclaimed themselves independent. Naturally, only the people inhabiting an area can found a state
through an administrative act of this kind. It is obvious that the native people of Inner Noricum were Slavs because the village population of the area
had not changed since pre-Roman times."

The Slovenian toponyms in northern Italy and eastern Switzerland (where the presumed Slavic settlement in the 6th century did not happen) are
ignored by Dr. Stih, although they clearly prove that West Slavs were present in these regions much before the settlement of South Slavs in the
Balkans. The fact that Slovenian names exist also in the upper levels of the Alpine chains (see Veneti pages 18-47) shows that these names were not
left by some transient people, but were a bequest of the indigenous population residing in the areas in question from time immemorial.

Russian professor Pavel V. Tulajev is of the same opinion. In his book Venety: predki Slavyan / Veneti: Ancestors of Slavs, Moscow 2000, p. 59, we read
about the settlement of the ancestors of Slovenians in the eastern Alps: "After reading the book Veneti there is no doubt about this. Slavs did not
come here across the Danube in the 6th century, but much earlier."

In the meantime, Dr. Stih and his coworkers in Ljubljana are preparing yet another official history of Slovenia, which will include, if his recent article is
any indication, more of the same old myths and inventions.

Veneti: First Builders of European Community: Tracing the History and Language of Early Ancestors of Slovenes is without doubt still the best book in
the English language regarding the history and origin of Slovenians. If anyone is interested, the price is 29 USD, postage is included. Write to:
Anton Skerbinc, Site 1, Box 17, Boswell, B.C., V0B 1A0 Canada anton@kootenay.com